5.  The applicant was born in 1986 and lives in Istanbul.
6.  On 29 April 2001 at approximately 2.30 p.m. the applicant was apprehended by a large group of police officers in Istanbul while she was walking to her sister's house. She did not have her identity papers at the time of her apprehension.
7.  She was subsequently handcuffed and taken to the Bahçelievler police headquarters, where she was questioned for an hour. She was allegedly subjected to inhuman treatment during the questioning, which involved being beaten with a truncheon, hosed down with cold water and banged against walls. She remained handcuffed and blindfolded throughout.
8.  At approximately 9.30 p.m. the applicant's family contacted the local police station to report her missing. The police identified the missing person as the applicant from the descriptions provided and referred her family to the anti-terrorist branch, located on the second floor of the Bahçelievler police headquarters.
9.  The applicant's family were subsequently taken to the interview room where the applicant was being held. They found the applicant in a hysterical state, screaming and cursing the police officers, hurling herself against the walls and attempting to throw herself out of the window. The applicant also had bruises and scratch marks on her head and wrists, which she claimed were caused by the handcuffs. When they asked why the applicant, who was only 15 at the material time, had been apprehended, the police informed the family that the applicant was a suspected terrorist and that she had not given them her name or age. The police further told them that the applicant had refused to talk despite the treatment through which they had put her.
10.  The applicant, however, had informed the authorities of both her and her father's name and her identity and age could be readily discovered from the diary which was in her bag. Moreover, her age had been changed from 14 to 19 in the diary by the police officers.
11.  The applicant's handcuffs were subsequently removed pending the verification of her identity information and she was given a glass of water. The applicant, however, broke this glass and cut her wrists. She was thereupon taken to Yenibosna Hospital by the police for treatment.
12.  After her treatment, at approximately 1.00 a.m., the police took the applicant to her house, where she again became hysterical. When the applicant refused to talk to her family about the treatment she had undergone at the police station, she was sent to her sister's house where she felt more at ease. Once at her sister's house, which was on the fourth floor, the applicant attempted to commit suicide by jumping out of the window.
13.  The applicant spent the following fourteen days in the intensive care unit at Istanbul University Hospital and was, allegedly, still undergoing psychological treatment at the Human Rights Foundation of Turkey at the time this application was lodged.
14.  During her stay at the hospital, officers from the Bahçelievler police headquarters, including the chief constable, came to visit her regularly and asked her family not to lodge a criminal complaint or inform the press of the incident. They explained that they had only apprehended the applicant because they had received a tip-off about her, which they now believed to have been made by the applicant herself. They then had the applicant's father listen to a recording of the tip-off call. The applicant's father claimed that the voice and accent on the tape did not belong to his daughter.
15.  On 29 April 2001, at approximately 2 p.m., an anonymous tip-off call was received through the police helpline reporting a woman carrying illegal documents in her bag. The anonymous caller provided a detailed description of the suspect, along with her exact whereabouts, specifying that the woman was standing in front of a certain callshop in the Bahçelievler district of Istanbul. The police dispatched a patrol to the indicated location and arrested the applicant, who matched the suspect's description. The applicant had no proof of identification with her at the time of her apprehension and refused to reveal her age or identity to the police. It appears from the official records submitted by the Government that her age was estimated to be 19 at the time.
16.  At around 4 p.m. the applicant was brought to the Bahçelievler police headquarters. She was questioned about her identity, family and address in the office of the superintendent of the anti-terrorist branch for approximately one hour, in the presence of the chief constable of the Bahçelievler police headquarters and the superintendent of the branch. Upon her refusal to provide any information, the applicant was further questioned for almost an hour by expert police officers from the anti-terrorist branch, where she maintained her silence.
17.  It was ultimately concluded that the applicant had no affiliations with any illegal organisations. She could not, however, be released as her identity remained unestablished and the police had come to believe by that point that the applicant was “mentally unstable”. It was, therefore, decided to keep her there under missing person status pending the investigation into her identity and address. In the meantime, the police units in the area were instructed to contact the Bahçelievler police headquarters regarding any reports of missing persons.
18.  At approximately 10.30 p.m. the applicant's sisters and uncles contacted Yenibosna police station to report her missing. They were directly referred to the Bahçelievler police headquarters where the applicant was being held. Upon seeing her family, the applicant immediately started acting in a disorderly manner, whereas up until that point she had been quite calm. The applicant subsequently attempted to jump out of the window in her frenzy and thus had to be handcuffed to a chair for her own safety. In the meantime, one of her sisters, G.E., told the police that the applicant suffered from a mental illness and that she had attempted to run away from home on previous occasions.
19.  Some time later, after she had become relatively calm, the handcuffs were removed and the applicant was given a glass of water at her request. The applicant, however, broke this glass and cut her wrists. She was immediately taken to Yenibosna Hospital by the police. According to the records submitted by the Government, the applicant had old scars on her arms and wrists, which suggested that she had also cut herself in the past.
20.  At approximately 12.10 a.m. the applicant was released from the hospital and accompanied by police to her address as she refused to go home with her family. When they arrived at the applicant's house, she went berserk and violently refused to enter her house, screaming that she did not want to see her father. She was accordingly taken to her sister's house, where she subsequently attempted to commit suicide by jumping out of the window at approximately 1.10 a.m.
21.  On 3 May 2001 the applicant's father filed a criminal complaint with the Bakırköy Public Prosecutor against the police officers at the Bahçelievler police headquarters. The applicant's father submitted that the police officers who had caused his daughter's mental suffering ought to be held responsible for the applicant's suicide attempt.
22.  On 15 May 2001 the Bakırköy Public Prosecutor referred the file to the Bahçelievler District Administrative Council and requested authorisation to prosecute the accused police officers in accordance with Law no. 4483 on the Trial of State Employees and other Civil Servants.
23.  The applicant alleges that, in the meantime, on 13 May 2001 eight police officers came to her sister T.Ç.'s house. They told T.Ç. that there were certain documents at the police headquarters which required their signatures and that their failure to sign these documents would result in their permanent detention in police custody.
24.  On 29 June 2001 two police inspectors were appointed to carry out a preliminary investigation on behalf of the Bahçelievler District Administrative Council into the allegations of the applicant's father. The inspectors took statements from the police officers concerned, the applicant's relatives and other witnesses for the purposes of the investigation. They did not, however, take a statement from the applicant, as she had not fully regained her health at that point.
25.  C.A. and D.A., the employees of the callshop in front of which the applicant had been apprehended, were asked to provide information as witnesses during the preliminary investigation. C.A. and D.A. claimed in their statement that, on the day of the incident, a woman had come into the shop to make a telephone call. She had then dialled 155, the police helpline, from the booth allocated to her. Approximately ten to fifteen minutes after the woman had completed her call, she was taken away by a police car outside their shop. C.A. and D.A. stated that the woman had not been handcuffed by the police. This was verified in the statements of the police officers who had arrested the applicant.
26.  According to the statement of G.Ç., one of the applicant's sisters, and D.E., an uncle, the applicant had marks on her wrists when they first saw her at the police headquarters, which had allegedly been caused by handcuffs. They did not mention any other marks or bruises on the applicant's body in their statement. Nor did they mention any complaints made to them by the applicant regarding any adverse treatment she had received while in police custody. The other sisters and uncle, on the other hand, stated that they had observed no marks on the applicant, not even on her wrists.
27.   Another sister of the applicant, G.E., submitted in her statement that when she was taken to the applicant at the police headquarters, the applicant had started having a violent outbreak, hitting her head against the walls. G.E. stated that her sister had only been handcuffed for a short while during that outbreak and that she had not mentioned being handcuffed at any other time.
28.  The applicant's father maintained in his statement that the applicant had been detained at the police headquarters for seven or eight hours, during which time she had been questioned under duress. He further stated that his daughter was normally a lively person. G.E., however, claimed that the applicant was a very reserved girl who avoided social interaction, that she had suffered from meningitis five years previously and that they had expected her to have a permanent physical or mental disability as a result of that illness.
29.  According to the preliminary investigation report, the paramedic who treated the applicant at Yenibosna Hospital for the cuts on her wrists had expressed in his statement that he had seen no other blemishes on the applicant's wrists, such as handcuff marks.
30.  On 24 July 2001 the Bahçelievler District Administrative Council (“the District Administrative Council”) declined to grant the required authorisation to prosecute the accused police officers owing to a lack of sufficient evidence. The decision was mainly based on the investigation report submitted by the two police inspectors and the statements contained therein. The District Administrative Council held that it was believed to have been the applicant who had reported herself to the police for reasons unknown to them. Moreover, although she had remained calm and silent throughout her detention at the police headquarters, she had attempted to hurt herself severely on three separate occasions upon being confronted with her family. The conclusion was therefore drawn that the applicant's suicide attempt could not be related to her detention and that the applicant's relatives had done no more than provide conflicting statements without bringing forth any evidence or witnesses in support of their allegations.
31.  On 23 August 2001, within the statutory time-limit, the applicant's father submitted an objection to the District Administrative Council's decision, complaining in particular of the administrative nature of the decision‑making body.
32.  On 7 December 2001 the Istanbul Regional Administrative Court upheld the District Administrative Council's decision. This decision was served on the applicant on 8 February 2002.
33.  In the meantime, disciplinary proceedings were also initiated against the accused police officers. On 11 October 2001 the disciplinary board of the police headquarters decided that no negligence could be established on the part of these officers in respect of the applicant's attempted suicide. No disciplinary action was therefore taken against them.